Dr Peiser was quoted in the Times on December 1, 2009 in
relation to Nasa forecasts concerning climate change saying:
"The predictions come thick and fast, but we take them all with a
pinch of salt. We look out of the window and it's very cold, it
doesn't seem to be warming. We're very concerned that 100-year
policies are being made on the basis of these predictions." During
a debate at the Oxford Union in 2005 he
stated: "While magnifying the possible risks to health and
mortality as a result of warmer temperatures, many underrate or
simply discount the possible health benefits of moderate
warming."

Dr Oreskes looked at 928 abstracts, published in refereed
scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and found that 75 percent
supported the consensus scientific view of climate change, as
expressed by the IPCC, with none challenging it. However, Dr Peiser
attacked the finding in robust terms. He started by pointing out
that that Oreskes had used the search term "global climate change"
rather than "climate change" when assessing the ISI database of
peer review papers. Conducting his own study of articles -
including those that were not peer reviewed - he
claimed 34 papers challenged the consensus.

However in a letter to the Australian organisation Media Watch
on 12 October 2006 he retracted this claim, saying that "I
no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some
of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt"
category are very ambiguous and should not have been included." He
later admitted
he had found only one study explicitly rejecting the consensus.
This paper was not peer reviewed and was published by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists.